Education needs to do a lot of convincing over its plans

SOMETIMES the art of the possible in politics is all about timing.

Education has got it all wrong when it comes to major reforms to the secondary system.

They are bold plans and the department is aiming to win over the public and at least half the Assembly in a six-week window on the eve of a general election.

On one level you can understand why this board, which has worked so hard to get its plans to the States, is pressing ahead – after all, they want something to show for four years of graft and this is what they were instructed to produce.

But understanding that desire and supporting that ambition are two very different things.

There are plenty of people who want to see the end of the 11-plus exam.

It is an unfair system, biased towards those who can afford personal tutors or whose teachers are adept at tailoring learning to pass it, for example, and it is reliant on a pupil performing in two exams.

That starting point, though, does not mean the States should back Education's proposals – supporting the end of the 11-plus does not automatically equate to what the department has put on the table.

Much has been made by the department that it has listened to the consultation responses and that has guided its proposals. It has listened, but only to those answers that support its case.

It should have been much more open about that from the outset. The stance has fooled no one and damaged the package's reputation.

There is a worrying trait among some on the board when under pressure that it is only the views of the professional educators that count on this. The bunker mentality quickly takes over.

Follow that through to its conclusion and there would be no need for a debate at all, the department can just rip up the structure which it is responsible for and start again.

That, though, underestimates the role of parents, of pupils, of business – so many people have a buy into what is on the table.

Many also come in with a natural bias based around their experiences at school or that of their children, friends and partners.

Times move on, of course, but there is a strength of attachment that should not be under-estimated.

The main problem for Education is that it needs to convince people that what it has proposed is better than what is currently operating.

It needs to show that scrapping the Grammar School does not mean the most able children fail to reach their potential.

It needs to show that teaching standards at all four schools are equally high, so that everyone can believe their child is being given the best opportunity to succeed.

It needs to explain in much clearer terms why selection with a little 's' at 14 will achieve better results and how that process will take place.

It needs to articulate clearly how bussing students and teachers around the island will not be overly disruptive.

It needs to do all this without coming across with an arrogant 'we know what's best for you' swagger.

In some ways this educational revolution comes at the wrong time.

Had it been proposed around the GCSE results scandal, when the high schools were perhaps at their lowest ebb, then the driver for change would have been clear.

Indeed, if the upward curve those schools are now on continued and the proposals had come at a time when their results and achievements were comparatively high, parents' concerns about a catchment area concept would be eased further.

As it is, we are somewhere in the middle.

Education has also been called out for the costs of its proposals.

Some people would have the debate without any thought of finance – after all, what price do you put on creating the best education system you can?

That is not, though, a realistic stance to take and the words gold-plated and education have gone hand-in-hand too often in the past.

Treasury were right to raise the financial impact of what the department has planned, although it is clear by following the money it favours an even more radical solution which is unlikely to get much public sympathy.

It leans towards a three-school approach, which could manifest itself in different combinations, one of which would entail shutting the Grammar School altogether.

Education is still picking up the pieces of its past mis-steps.

Whether that was pressing ahead with Les Beaucamps before La Mare, being forced into reviews after hiding poor GCSE results or failing to publish its secondary proposals ahead of the debate on rebuilding La Mare earlier this term.

Even now Education has also not come up with a complete package.

It has tried to put aside another highly politically-charged element of secondary education – that of college funding – for another day.

That smacks of being rushed to the table to meet the election deadline more than good policy making.

There is too much at stake not to ensure there is wide public support before moving on with the education revolution.

That in itself is all about timing, making enough of it for the system to be tested and questioned by those looking in from outside Education's cocoon.